For JSO: A Tale of Forgiveness

[JohnStOnge]

I do not think it's clear that, at the time that it happened, a person in her position understood that using a private e mail server was illegal. I think we were in a transitional period with respect to that sort of thing at that point.

That does not mean I don't think she acted improperly. I think she was way to concerned about trying to hide things.

Completely wrong.

Why do you keep weighing in so authoritatively on something you obviously know so little about? You do realize there are at least 4 regular posters on this forum who have current clearances who are all telling you you are full of sh!t, right?

I know more about it than you think I do.

[CID1990]

Completely wrong.

Why do you keep weighing in so authoritatively on something you obviously know so little about? You do realize there are at least 4 regular posters on this forum who have current clearances who are all telling you you are full of sh!t, right?

I know more about it than you think I do.

That is an undebatable assertion

But based on the evidence (your own claims and comments), you are basically Sarah Palin claiming Russia expertise

Your assertion that we were in some kind of transitional period is completely fabricated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[css75]

Completely wrong.

Why do you keep weighing in so authoritatively on something you obviously know so little about? You do realize there are at least 4 regular posters on this forum who have current clearances who are all telling you you are full of sh!t, right?

I know more about it than you think I do.

You may know some things, government internet security is not one of them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

I know government security.

[JohnStOnge]

I know more about it than you think I do.

That is an undebatable assertion

But based on the evidence (your own claims and comments), you are basically Sarah Palin claiming Russia expertise

Your assertion that we were in some kind of transitional period is completely fabricated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not going to tell you what I do in detail or who I work for but I am familiar with Federal Computer Security rules and I have to take a course on that to update my knowledge every year (as I'm sure you do as well). I think that the controlling body of law here is not that involving the handling of classified information. I think it's the Records Management Act. That Act was updated in 2014 to modernize it and expand it to cover electronic records. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State during 2009 through 2013. You get the picture.

If what Hillary did when she was Secretary of State now just in terms of using a private e mail server to handle work related e mail it would clearly be illegal. But during her tenure as Secretary of State that was not the case.

[JohnStOnge]

I know more about it than you think I do.

You may know some things, government internet security is not one of them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You are wrong. No, I am not responsible for designing government internet security. But I am very aware of what the rules that are in place to protect it are. And those rules aren't the same now as they were when Clinton was Secretary of State.

[JohnStOnge]

I know government security.

Then you know that what I posted in my two previous posts is correct.

[CID1990]

That is an undebatable assertion

But based on the evidence (your own claims and comments), you are basically Sarah Palin claiming Russia expertise

Your assertion that we were in some kind of transitional period is completely fabricated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not going to tell you what I do in detail or who I work for but I am familiar with Federal Computer Security rules and I have to take a course on that to update my knowledge every year (as I'm sure you do as well). I think that the controlling body of law here is not that involving the handling of classified information. I think it's the Records Management Act. That Act was updated in 2014 to modernize it and expand it to cover electronic records. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State during 2009 through 2013. You get the picture.

If what Hillary did when she was Secretary of State now just in terms of using a private e mail server to handle work related e mail it would clearly be illegal. But during her tenure as Secretary of State that was not the case.

For a supposedly smart guy, this is a surprisingly stupid post from you - but a clever circular argument... Hillary didn’t mishandle classified.... if Hillary didn’t handle classified on her server, then the controlling law must be the Records Mgt Act

The controlling law here is in fact 18 USC 1924. We’ve been down this road before, but maybe you didn’t read about it because back then you weren’t a fervent defender of Hillary

As I said before, you don’t know what you are talking about - the records management act has ZERO to do with classified handling

Stop being willfully ignorant

[JohnStOnge]

I am not going to tell you what I do in detail or who I work for but I am familiar with Federal Computer Security rules and I have to take a course on that to update my knowledge every year (as I'm sure you do as well). I think that the controlling body of law here is not that involving the handling of classified information. I think it's the Records Management Act. That Act was updated in 2014 to modernize it and expand it to cover electronic records. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State during 2009 through 2013. You get the picture.

If what Hillary did when she was Secretary of State now just in terms of using a private e mail server to handle work related e mail it would clearly be illegal. But during her tenure as Secretary of State that was not the case.

For a supposedly smart guy, this is a surprisingly stupid post from you - but a clever circular argument... Hillary didn’t mishandle classified.... if Hillary didn’t handle classified on her server, then the controlling law must be the Records Mgt Act

The controlling law here is in fact 18 USC 1924. We’ve been down this road before, but maybe you didn’t read about it because back then you weren’t a fervent defender of Hillary

As I said before, you don’t know what you are talking about - the records management act has ZERO to do with classified handling

Stop being willfully ignorant

You're right in that we've been down this road before. The FBI decided Hillary shouldn't be prosecuted for mishandling classified information. I've seen people qualified argue on both sides of that issue. Bottom line is that Comey, who I think is probably more qualified to make the call than you or I are, concluded prosecution under 18 USC 1924 is not justified.

BTW I didn't know the text of 18 USC 1924 but I looked it up and here is how it goes at the start:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

Underline added for emphasis. And I don't see anything in that particular statute...at least as it is presented at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924...to say that she would be liable for violation of it whether she knowingly did anything or not. I know there has been discussion of statutes related to "negligence" and whether there was intent or not. But that particular statute apparently isn't like that. To violate THAT particular statute, you have to knowingly do something.

So the question is whether or not she should've been using a private server to begin with regardless. The idea that she felt that she could avoid handling classified information using her personal e mail account is plausible. And back then there were no clear rules saying that she could not handle ANY State Department business using a private e mail address or a private server.

[kalm]

For a supposedly smart guy, this is a surprisingly stupid post from you - but a clever circular argument... Hillary didn’t mishandle classified.... if Hillary didn’t handle classified on her server, then the controlling law must be the Records Mgt Act

The controlling law here is in fact 18 USC 1924. We’ve been down this road before, but maybe you didn’t read about it because back then you weren’t a fervent defender of Hillary

As I said before, you don’t know what you are talking about - the records management act has ZERO to do with classified handling

Stop being willfully ignorant

You're right in that we've been down this road before. The FBI decided Hillary shouldn't be prosecuted for mishandling classified information. I've seen people qualified argue on both sides of that issue. Bottom line is that Comey, who I think is probably more qualified to make the call than you or I are, concluded prosecution under 18 USC 1924 is not justified.

BTW I didn't know the text of 18 USC 1924 but I looked it up and here is how it goes at the start:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

Underline added for emphasis. And I don't see anything in that particular statute...at least as it is presented at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924...to say that she would be liable for violation of it whether she knowingly did anything or not. I know there has been discussion of statutes related to "negligence" and whether there was intent or not. But that particular statute apparently isn't like that. To violate THAT particular statute, you have to knowingly do something.

So the question is whether or not she should've been using a private server to begin with regardless. The idea that she felt that she could avoid handling classified information using her personal e mail account is plausible. And back then there were no clear rules saying that she could not handle ANY State Department business using a private e mail address or a private server.

IOW’s people in their mid 60’s ain’t exactly tech savvy at that time (many still aren’t).

I think CID’s trying to say ‘unless your in a position like Sec of State in which case they will make damn well sure you are or your handlers will be educated’.

[CID1990]

For a supposedly smart guy, this is a surprisingly stupid post from you - but a clever circular argument... Hillary didn’t mishandle classified.... if Hillary didn’t handle classified on her server, then the controlling law must be the Records Mgt Act

The controlling law here is in fact 18 USC 1924. We’ve been down this road before, but maybe you didn’t read about it because back then you weren’t a fervent defender of Hillary

As I said before, you don’t know what you are talking about - the records management act has ZERO to do with classified handling

Stop being willfully ignorant

You're right in that we've been down this road before. The FBI decided Hillary shouldn't be prosecuted for mishandling classified information. I've seen people qualified argue on both sides of that issue. Bottom line is that Comey, who I think is probably more qualified to make the call than you or I are, concluded prosecution under 18 USC 1924 is not justified.

BTW I didn't know the text of 18 USC 1924 but I looked it up and here is how it goes at the start:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

Underline added for emphasis. And I don't see anything in that particular statute...at least as it is presented at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924...to say that she would be liable for violation of it whether she knowingly did anything or not. I know there has been discussion of statutes related to "negligence" and whether there was intent or not. But that particular statute apparently isn't like that. To violate THAT particular statute, you have to knowingly do something.

So the question is whether or not she should've been using a private server to begin with regardless. The idea that she felt that she could avoid handling classified information using her personal e mail account is plausible. And back then there were no clear rules saying that she could not handle ANY State Department business using a private e mail address or a private server.

The knowingly part is that the Secretary of State knowingly had her own email server and then she knowingly did all of her Secretary of State business on it. And there was SCI on there that she handled.

I understood the handling of classified emails before Hillary was SecState - and did so with due care and respect for the underlying laws...so I guess I'm more competent than Hillary

And i love how a guy who usually rails at law enforcement discretion (see all of your whines about DUI) suddenly finds it authoritative




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

BTW I didn't know the text of 18 USC 1924 but I looked it up and here is how it goes at the start:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

Underline added for emphasis. And I don't see anything in that particular statute...at least as it is presented at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924...to say that she would be liable for violation of it whether she knowingly did anything or not. I know there has been discussion of statutes related to "negligence" and whether there was intent or not. But that particular statute apparently isn't like that. To violate THAT particular statute, you have to knowingly do something.

So the question is whether or not she should've been using a private server to begin with regardless. The idea that she felt that she could avoid handling classified information using her personal e mail account is plausible. And back then there were no clear rules saying that she could not handle ANY State Department business using a private e mail address or a private server.

"18 USC 793, paragraph F (1)
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

[BDKJMU]

JSO, do you honestly believe that:
-Clinton thought it was ok as Sec State to have a private server to do her business on, and that as Sec State she thought she wouldn't be handling any classified info on that server?
-That a much lesser govt employee wouldn't have been prosecuted for doing the exact same thing?

[css75]

JSO, do you honestly believe that:
-Clinton thought it was ok as Sec State to have a private server to do her business on, and that as Sec State she thought she wouldn't be handling any classified info on that server?
-That a much lesser govt employee wouldn't have been prosecuted for doing the exact same thing?

Yes, he does. Anyone else would have been locked up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

JSO, do you honestly believe that:
-Clinton thought it was ok as Sec State to have a private server to do her business on, and that as Sec State she thought she wouldn't be handling any classified info on that server?
-That a much lesser govt employee wouldn't have been prosecuted for doing the exact same thing?

Yes, he does. Anyone else would have been locked up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I know part of the reason why Hillary got off was because she had communicated with Obama when she was on foreign soil and Obama denied it...but was later found to be lying.

Can't go after Hillary if they act like the Present didn't lie.

This is what I hope gets exposed by the whole Russia bullshit. That our government picks and chooses who gets held to the rules differently.

Hillary may not have sent a whole lot of classified shit, but she knew better. Everyone knows she set that shit up for two reasons.

1. To communicate about her quid quo pro deals with the state department.
2. So she could destroy whatever communication she felt like if ever asked to turn over emails....just like how she had all her blackberries smashed with hammers.

[CID1990]

Yes, he does. Anyone else would have been locked up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I know part of the reason why Hillary got off was because she had communicated with Obama when she was on foreign soil and Obama denied it...but was later found to be lying.

Can't go after Hillary if they act like the Present didn't lie.

This is what I hope gets exposed by the whole Russia bullshit. That our government picks and chooses who gets held to the rules differently.

Hillary may not have sent a whole lot of classified ****, but she knew better. Everyone knows she set that **** up for two reasons.

1. To communicate about her quid quo pro deals with the state department.
2. So she could destroy whatever communication she felt like if ever asked to turn over emails....just like how she had all her blackberries smashed with hammers.

I don’t think it was that conniving

I just think she didn’t want to have her communications subject to FOIA or Congressional oversight. I don’t think she had the concealment of specific activities in mind when she had the server set up. She was just being a Clinton

[kalm]

This is what I hope gets exposed by the whole Russia bullshit. That our government picks and chooses who gets held to the rules differently.

On this, you and I agree, and it also applies to economics.

Preach it brotha!

[Ibanez]

[

The other issue you've avoided is her competence in regard to the email server question. You've essentially argued that her actions were ignorant not criminal. I won't argue intent here because you've demonstrated that you are completely obtuse on that point but it is a person in her position's (and her support staff as well) to understand that a private email server was illegal and a security risk. To not know that and act accordingly demonstrates incompetence and should disqualify someone from being POTUS. You can't have it both ways. Pick one: her actions were criminal or she was incompetent.

I do not think it's clear that, at the time that it happened, a person in her position understood that using a private e mail server was illegal. I think we were in a transitional period with respect to that sort of thing at that point.

That does not mean I don't think she acted improperly. I think she was way to concerned about trying to hide things.

100% wrong. Wrong. Wrong Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. She knew it was wrong. It was common sense that you DO NOT USE PERSONAL EMAIL FOR GOVERNMENT BUSINESS let along a private email server. Where is the logic in using a private email server when the infrastructure, security and costs are already in place?! Why is that so fucking hard for you to comprehend? Not only did she know that it was wrong, but her State Department used is part of the rational to fire an ambassador (really, he was incompetent) but still the IG cited:

and the nonuse of commercial email for official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information.

Man up, JSO. You are wrong. Me, CID, 93, Col Hogan, AZ (at a miniumum) have all held Secret to TS clearances. We've all been instructed on how to secure information. We've all been educated yearly in our careers how to identify and classify information. I'm sure we've all, at a minimum, signed the SF312. Her SCI NDA states:

I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/upload ... I-NDA1.pdf

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUME ... 833708.pdf

That is her signature. She knew it.

[Ibanez]

That is an undebatable assertion

But based on the evidence (your own claims and comments), you are basically Sarah Palin claiming Russia expertise

Your assertion that we were in some kind of transitional period is completely fabricated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not going to tell you what I do in detail or who I work for but I am familiar with Federal Computer Security rules and I have to take a course on that to update my knowledge every year (as I'm sure you do as well). I think that the controlling body of law here is not that involving the handling of classified information. I think it's the Records Management Act. That Act was updated in 2014 to modernize it and expand it to cover electronic records. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State during 2009 through 2013. You get the picture.

If what Hillary did when she was Secretary of State now just in terms of using a private e mail server to handle work related e mail it would clearly be illegal. But during her tenure as Secretary of State that was not the case.

Wrong again. It is around the handling of classified information. It was like that in 2007 when I got my security clearance and I was doing grunt work. It was like that in 2010 when I got TS-SCI. It was like that when she was a US Senator.

You are wrong.

[Ibanez]

For a supposedly smart guy, this is a surprisingly stupid post from you - but a clever circular argument... Hillary didn’t mishandle classified.... if Hillary didn’t handle classified on her server, then the controlling law must be the Records Mgt Act

The controlling law here is in fact 18 USC 1924. We’ve been down this road before, but maybe you didn’t read about it because back then you weren’t a fervent defender of Hillary

As I said before, you don’t know what you are talking about - the records management act has ZERO to do with classified handling

Stop being willfully ignorant

You're right in that we've been down this road before. The FBI decided Hillary shouldn't be prosecuted for mishandling classified information. I've seen people qualified argue on both sides of that issue. Bottom line is that Comey, who I think is probably more qualified to make the call than you or I are, concluded prosecution under 18 USC 1924 is not justified.

BTW I didn't know the text of 18 USC 1924 but I looked it up and here is how it goes at the start:

Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

Underline added for emphasis. And I don't see anything in that particular statute...at least as it is presented at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924...to say that she would be liable for violation of it whether she knowingly did anything or not. I know there has been discussion of statutes related to "negligence" and whether there was intent or not. But that particular statute apparently isn't like that. To violate THAT particular statute, you have to knowingly do something.

So the question is whether or not she should've been using a private server to begin with regardless. The idea that she felt that she could avoid handling classified information using her personal e mail account is plausible. And back then there were no clear rules saying that she could not handle ANY State Department business using a private e mail address or a private server.

And we all know that "knowingly" means jack shit. There are people in prison for mishandling information. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse.

[CID1990]

You're right in that we've been down this road before. The FBI decided Hillary shouldn't be prosecuted for mishandling classified information. I've seen people qualified argue on both sides of that issue. Bottom line is that Comey, who I think is probably more qualified to make the call than you or I are, concluded prosecution under 18 USC 1924 is not justified.

BTW I didn't know the text of 18 USC 1924 but I looked it up and here is how it goes at the start:



Underline added for emphasis. And I don't see anything in that particular statute...at least as it is presented at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924...to say that she would be liable for violation of it whether she knowingly did anything or not. I know there has been discussion of statutes related to "negligence" and whether there was intent or not. But that particular statute apparently isn't like that. To violate THAT particular statute, you have to knowingly do something.

So the question is whether or not she should've been using a private server to begin with regardless. The idea that she felt that she could avoid handling classified information using her personal e mail account is plausible. And back then there were no clear rules saying that she could not handle ANY State Department business using a private e mail address or a private server.

And we all know that "knowingly" means jack ****. There are people in prison for mishandling information. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse.

I'll give JSO props at least for this-

He's the sensei of the art of taking a lack of understanding and playing it out for all its worth


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

And we all know that "knowingly" means jack ****. There are people in prison for mishandling information. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse.

I'll give JSO props at least for this-

He's the sensei of the art of taking a lack of understanding and playing it out for all its worth


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He sure does.

[JohnStOnge]

And we all know that "knowingly" means jack ****. There are people in prison for mishandling information. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse.

The particular statute you cited contains the condition that materials be "knowingly" handled in certain ways. Yes, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. But if the language of the law says you have to "knowingly" do something in order to violate it you have to "knowingly" do something in order to violate it. It's not like if you don't know you can't shoot whooping cranes then try to use the fact that you didn't know you weren't supposed to shoot them as an excuse. In this case you have to "knowingly" do something in order to violate the law to begin with. It's right there in the language off the statute.

I mean, I quoted the statute above and provided a link to it. Does it not include the condition that the action be "knowingly" committed?

[JohnStOnge]

Now for the reason I came back to this thread. I was having a discussion with my super duper devout conservative Catholic Christian brother last night and he was defending the idea that Trump's personal morality doesn't matter because his policies are anti abortion, anti making Christians bake cakes for homosexual weddings and such.

So I asked him how far that goes. I asked him, for instance, if Trump raped an 8 year old girl would he still support him because he's getting the policies he wants? I said that I was just using an extreme example to illustrate the idea that there is a point at which one would have to say that personal morality outweighs the perception that an official is doing what someone wants policy wise.

But it didn't work because in the end he said that he would still support Trump even if he raped an 8 year old girl. I am not making this up. That is how bad it is.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW I didn't know the text of 18 USC 1924 but I looked it up and here is how it goes at the start:



Underline added for emphasis. And I don't see anything in that particular statute...at least as it is presented at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924...to say that she would be liable for violation of it whether she knowingly did anything or not. I know there has been discussion of statutes related to "negligence" and whether there was intent or not. But that particular statute apparently isn't like that. To violate THAT particular statute, you have to knowingly do something.

So the question is whether or not she should've been using a private server to begin with regardless. The idea that she felt that she could avoid handling classified information using her personal e mail account is plausible. And back then there were no clear rules saying that she could not handle ANY State Department business using a private e mail address or a private server.

"18 USC 793, paragraph F (1)
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Yes I know about that one. The key terminology, as you indicated in bold, is "gross negligence." That introduces a subjective determination. Apparently, the FBI concluded that Clinton's actions did not involve "gross negligence."

Note that the FBI knows what was in the e mails it looked at while we do not.

The bottom line is that Conservatives/Republicans don't like the fact that the FBI decided not to recommend charges against Clinton because they didn't get what they wanted out of it. Never mind that the FBI did about the best thing it could do to increase the chances of Trump getting elected by not recommending charges so that the Democrats didn't go to Sanders while at the same time severely wounding Clinton with the lecture on how careless she was.